The Instigator
Farooq
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Phyfe2112
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,076 times Debate No: 2183
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

Farooq

Pro

My country, Canada, was one of NATO nations that engaged in the UN sanctioned invasion of Afghanistan following the newsworthy events of 9/11 and several decades of Taliban oppression. Though all four of our major political parties supported the original incursion the country much apathy has recently been generated on part of the opposition parties, who have determined that they believe the security mission undergone by Dutch, Canadian, American, and British force in no longer necessary and a pull-out should happen. The minority TORY government tried to mitigate the 52% disapproval rating of the mission by appointing a former LIBERAL deputy Prime Minister, John Manley, to head a panel to investigate what should be done about Canadian presence there. After conducting extensive fact-finding mission the panel came to the conclusion that although more NATO powers should step up to the plate and address security matters, that security in the Qandahar region can only be maintained if active military missions are conducted.
A civilized nation does not invade a country, overthrow its government, ruin the infrastructure, and than leave, the country still in anarchy. Rather common courtesy and international responsibility should be maintained, mid way through a project is not a time to doubt it, think first and than act! NATO invaded Afghanistan and therefore has the responsibility to rebuild the country so that its struggling government can hope to hold itself together. Mr. Karzai is splendid statesman, but he lacks the efficiency and man power for the police and military to effectively deal with the security problems facing his country. Resolved, NATO should maintain its presence in Afghanistan, including active military fighting.
Phyfe2112

Con

Alright, this'll be my first debate. Thanks for the topic.

First off, let's look at your resolution and throw out some definitions to get things started.

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

--Let's define NATO and what NATO was designed for:
"an organization formed in Washington, D.C. (1949), comprising the 12 nations of the Atlantic Pact together with Greece, Turkey, and the Federal Republic of Germany, for the purpose of collective defense against aggression."

In addition to this, NATO was created as a balancing power to the Soviet bloc, which was created by the Warsaw Pact:
"The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 removed the de facto main adversary of NATO. This caused a strategic re-evaluation of NATO's purpose, nature and tasks."-wikipedia

So, according to this definition and the clear fact that NATO was created only to produce a rival to the Soviet Union, NATO, in effect, is not even suppose to exist any longer. Yet, despite that fact, it still does.

On to the other definitions:
Violent:
"caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death."
and
Force:
"strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence: to use force to open the window; to use force on a person."

So let's move on with the evaluation of the situation. In my opponent's resolution he calls for supporting a regime with violent force if necessary. I can assume that we agree that violence is bad, if you disagree, I invite you to allow a brawl of violent drunken men into your home with your family and see if you don't like violence. I can also assume that force, or forcing someone or something to do something, is in essence, removing it's freedom of choice, it's "Free Will" if you will.

Let me add one more definition before we move on, and that is the definition of civilized:
"1. Having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. Polite; well-bred; refined."

In your first statement, you make the claim that "A civilized nation does not invade a country, overthrow its government, ruin the infrastructure, and than leave, the country still in anarchy." I would hold that this is true, but I will take it further: under my definitions (which were attained from dictionary.com, for clarity) a civilized nation, being humane, meaning "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed", wouldn't even begin an invasion in the first place.

Yet, let us say that a so-called "civilized" nation does invade Afghanistan, as was done by some NATO participant countries. Under the Geneva Convention, it is internationally illegal to invade a country without cause, in short, to start a war of aggression or a pre-emptive war. Afghanistan, in no source I can find, has ever invaded a NATO participant country while NATO was in existence. In fact, the US, the founder of NATO, gave the Afghani's weapons in order to fight the Soviet Union. In the argument of 9/11, it wasn't Afghanistan or any country that attacked the U.S., but fundamentalist groups, one led by Osama bin-Laden. He should be the target, not the country of Afghanistan.

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. The countries involved should be reprimanded. By remaining in Afghanistan and forcing people to accept the Karzai Regime, we are removing the people's freedom of choice. It is not the job of other countries to make sure that Afghanistan does things the way we view is the correct way to do things. Would you like it if your country was invaded and people told you how to think or what to accept, let alone foreigners? In almost every case in history, those that are oppressed by outside forces will eventually resent it, and create fundamentalists, like what exist today in numerous countries, or nationalists. It caused both World Wars and many countless wars of the years. By invading a country and taking over it's government, you only radicalise the enemy more while creating more enemies in the process.

I would urge the voter to consider that not only was the war in Afghanistan illegal, but NATO is forcing people to do things, which is the opposite of democracy, and that using violent force in order to maintain the regime NATO put in power is not only uncivilized but it is the opposite of freedom. I also would like to point out to you that under my definition of civilized, the NATO powers don't qualify, yet he implies that they do.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Farooq

Pro

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.
Phyfe2112

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Farooq

Pro

"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.

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 somehting 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.

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.
Phyfe2112

Con

""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.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
I'm going to have to vote Con on the 42% percent argument. This was the Pro's only rationale for keeping NATO in Afghanistan and without this the Pro has no case. Aside from everything else in the debate.
Posted by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
Hey, I have to apologize for my last speech. I was not aware that it was my last one, or else I would have ended it properly. I do apologize if it seems like I brought any new things in that you couldn't refute, as it was the last speech. I apologize for that.

Thank you for the debate, it was fun.
Posted by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
no worries- i will post later today (though I'm not sure if I'll be able to on the weekend- thus the procrastination. I suggest if you are bored to engage in other debates on various subjects as well.
Posted by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
this is gonna be lame if he doesn't post ><
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
FarooqPhyfe2112Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
FarooqPhyfe2112Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
FarooqPhyfe2112Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
FarooqPhyfe2112Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
FarooqPhyfe2112Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
FarooqPhyfe2112Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03