Was going into Afghanistan a good idea?

[LincolnLover]

We have had decent debate about Iraq, but I think it worth discussing our other war as well in Afghanistan. We have been at war there well before Iraq and plan to be there well after. We went in after 9/11 to make arrests and topple a regime which sheltered those fugitives. We toppeled that regime and then found the main fugitive sheltered near a military base in an "ally" nation (where we popped his eye out of his head and let the fishes eat the brain matter that come out) So knowing all of what we know now, was it a good idea to invade to begin with? Is it a good idea to stay? Untill 2014, or even longer if needed?

I feel this article is reflective of the content of the discussion.
http://news.yahoo.com/suicide-bomber-attacks-shiite-shrine-kabul-074309077.html

[Julie Fern]

settling in for nation-building big mistake.  obama's escalation just as stupid.

[LincolnLover]

ok. I can see the argument against nation building. Should we have retaliated after the 9/11 attacks? If so should we have limited it to a bombing campain and air war like we say in Kosovo and Clinton era missle attacks on Iraq? Would it have been a good idea to still send in ground troops for ground battles against the terror groups and then leave clean up largely to the locals (like we did in Somolia)?

settling in for nation-building big mistake.  obama's escalation just as stupid.

[Julie Fern]

limited air assaults.  maybe limited ground action.

when we came in and settled in, that's when terrorists won.

[LincolnLover]

So basicly what we did in Libya?

[Julie Fern]

yes.  maximum impact from minimum risk.

[LincolnLover]

When is nation rebuilding ok then? It worked well in Europe and Japan and many other locations.
No WW3 yet, democracies where none were before, trading partners, good strategic locations for military bases for mutual protection.

Why do you think it worked well for those area and not as well in  areas like Afganistan and Somalia?

[Julie Fern]

europe our allies, and that femtirely different.  japan, italy, and germany previously our enemies, but had surrendered.

however, iraq and afghanistan places where we drop troops into largely hostile areas to babysit.  more like viet nam situation.  key sign:  when need local troops to get organized so u.s. can leave.  that never seem work.  iraq, especially, no threat to imvade others due to no-fly zone.  then gump administration make up all that crap about wmds to justify invasion.  shameful.

there nothing wrong with helping people, but depend on situation.  libya and, now, syria seem better suited to providing some assistance to people we want help.

[LincolnLover]

Japan only surrendered after we droped a nuke on them. Think that would fix the situation with rebels in the Afghan and Iraq areas?

[Julie Fern]

surrender not only objective.  wqith afghanistan, idead stop terrorists staging attacks.  in iraq, no need do anyything:  iraq already contained.  that why gump administration make up excuse invade.