Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

I will answer my opponent's questions, then move on to my second speech. 1. This question supports my point that NATO presence does not improve Afghan lives. 2. Why should anyone have to bear the burden of conflict in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, that is where we should be fighting. 3. They both attract suicide bombers like flies to honey. NATO is legally the US Army because NATO countries are the US's allies and NATO is under US control. 4. My sources say that Karzai now has worse human rights abuses. 5. Legally, NATO and the US Army are one and the same, as I've mentioned before. 6. Economics is not the only indicator of standard of living. This is shown by the increasing number of opium smokers under Karzai. 7. With supposed democratic elections, we need to know who got to vote. Whether only wealthy landowners or the general public got to vote makes a major difference. Where's your source that says that the general public got to vote? 8. Of course the Afghan civilians. They know what they want. 9. Taliban propaganda targets the US directly and NATO indirectly. Neither NATO or the US is in a position to seek cooperation from the Afghans. 10. If all of NATO besides the US retreated, then maybe the US would send more troops, but maybe the US would consider retreating. 11. The first question has an obvious answer. I don't think the Taliban will step up their inhumane attacks. There would be no enemies to attack. 12. No, it leaves the US with an "I stand alone" feeling. 13. How is this relevant to the topic? 14. The Taliban. They have before, they will do it again. I will no move on to my 2nd speech. My opponent mentions in his first speech that the problem was that nobody can do anything about corruption. I disagree. When the Taliban ruled, they cracked down on corruption. Corruption wasn't as much of a problem then as now. The problem with corruption is that no one is doing anything about it. There is corruption in the West as well as Afghanistan, so Afghanistan probably got its corruption from NATO. NATO is also not doing anything to solve the problem. That leaves Karzai to solve the problem, and he's not going to shape up as long as NATO backs him. My opponent's 2 contentions also have nothing to do with the resolution. He talks about the effects of Taliban propaganda and the US fighting the war by itself. This is not a debate about whether NATO should fight. This is a debate on whether NATO helps improve Afghan lives. My opponent also says that NATO bases are not concentrated in cities. He fails to mention that a large cluster of NATO bases surround Kabul. That is where Karzai and his corrupt government are. That is where the Taliban want to attack. Kabul is a city with a sizable population. There, not only does NATO act as a disaster magnet, Karzai does too. My opponent sees the Taliban as terrorists. They are not terrorists, they are insurgents. They suicide-bomb to fight a foreign invasion, a.k.a. NATO. M opponent says that he would be very happy for only .0014% of the population in his country to be killed in war. I'd like to point out that more than 15,000 Afghans have died in this war. That is almost comparable to US soldier deaths in Vietnam. Is it moral to allow civilians to keep dying? If the US doesn't command NATO, then NATO is responsible for all deaths caused by unmanned aircraft. NATO may not bomb civilian centers, but it does bomb civilians. NATO may help rebuild the country, but if there was no war and no foreign invasion, this would be unneeded. The absence of NATO, as I see it, means that the US is gone as well. My opponent keeps saying that the absence of NATO would mean that the US would send more forces. NATO and the US are legally one and the same. My opponent never mentioned anything about finishing the war quicker in his second contention. Therefore, his response to question 8 is invalid.