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

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. 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. "a civilized nation…wouldn't even begin an invasion in the first place." 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 invading a country and taking over it's government, you only radicalise the enemy more while creating more enemies in the process." 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? 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. I urge you to alter your opinions and embrace interventionism as an important political tenet, particularly in regards to the Karzai regime of Afghanistan.