The sort answer of course is that they limited the ability of Radical islam in all three areas.

Iran is a nation state with considerable wealth, resources and a populace that is pretty well educated. The wars in Iraq and Afghaninastan decreased their military potential not a whit. If anything, it has increased because we thoughtfully deposed their greatest enemy.

Why do you need such a big stimulus? Isn't that socialism?

I assume you are being facetious? How exactly is government spending in and of itself considered to be "socialism"?

And without them, IRan would have had nukes by now.

What a crock of shit...there is absolutely no proof that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have slowed down the Iranian's nuclear program or caused them not to have nuclear weapons by now...

I know where I would start military cuts, but I didn't campaign there.

Why do you need such a big stimulus? Isn't that socialism? Didn't Americans criticize Europeans for doing this for decades? Now we learned our lesson, but you reinvent it. Why not let the market fix itself?

I'll answer the last question first since it's the easiest. It's politically impossible for any president to “let the market fix itself”. Something must be done. For President Bush back in 2001, it was tax cuts, for President Obama it's spending. But something will be done.

Complaining about socialism presents a false dichotomy. Neither the German system nor the American one is either fully socialistic nor completely free market. In some ways we're more free market, in others the Germans are.

I don't feel qualified to tell Germans how they should run their domestic economy. I would wish that Germans would give me the same courtesy but, alas, that's not to be.

I would have preferred a somewhat different spending package than was passed by the Congress just as I would have preferred a different tax cut than President Bush. That wasn't in my control. However, to be effective in an economy of our size fiscal stimulus must be large. A $400 billion stimulus package in the U. S. is roughly is the equivalent of an $80 billion one in Germany.

You may not have noticed: I rarely critique the domestic arrangements of other countries. I feel that people are entitled to their own mistakes. What suits Germans may not suit Americans and vice versa. Differences in circumstances and tastes don't seem to deter German news media from engaging in the passive aggressive claptrap they've been dealing out for the last thirty years, at least.

Without the wars and ambitious state building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, you would not need to borrow so much. The economic stimulus would be easier to finance.

You clearly don't understand fiscal stimulus. To have a stimulus effect it must be borrowed.

That having been said, don't blame me for Iraq or Afghanistan. I opposed both invasions. We did what we did and now we are required by international law, political necessity, and common decency to make the best of the situation.

Americans should not criticize Europeans that much for their small international contributions, because all these wars are terribly expensive and the money is needed for domestic economic issues, because higher taxes and higher deficits are harmful to the economy in the long run.

I wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and if I had I wouldn't have made it a NATO mission. However, that's water under the bridge and if a military alliance has any validity its members need to contribute their share. This might be a good opportunity for James to step in with some observations on NATO's future role.

Joerg - more Americans agree with your posts than you probably get from the "news"

Determined they may have been, but able to respond in force? Not so much, anymore.

Anyway, so you spend a few hundred billion dollars on the wars (trillion?) just to save a couple of years before Iran gets the bomb?

You do understand this is survival we're talking about, right?

How did the Iraq and Afghanistan wars slow Iran down?

Short answer is that, of course, they did not. If anything, our demonstrated willingness and ability to depose middle eastern governments we don't like made the acquisition of nukes by Iran much more urgent.

How did the Iraq and Afghanistan wars slow Iran down?

I thought the wars on the Western and Eastern border of Iran just made them more determined, since they feel surrounded by nuclear powers, US and Pakistan.

Anyway, so you spend a few hundred billion dollars on the wars (trillion?) just to save a couple of years before Iran gets the bomb?

Why do you need such a big stimulus? Isn't that socialism? Didn't Americans criticize Europeans for doing this for decades? Now we learned our lesson, but you reinvent it. Why not let the market fix itself?

Two things;
First, you ask questions most of US have been asking. THe answer, I fear is the American people have elected a socialist.

The other thing.. I note with some irony that goin more socialist is what left in this country mean when they say we should be more like the Europeans.

Without the wars and ambitious state building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, you would not need to borrow so much. The economic stimulus would be easier to finance.

And without them, IRan would have had nukes by now. This is desirable?

I have been "seeing" you all the time, i.e. reading your post ;-) , but unfortunately lack the time to comment.

Why do you need such a big stimulus? Isn't that socialism? Didn't Americans criticize Europeans for doing this for decades? Now we learned our lesson, but you reinvent it. Why not let the market fix itself?

Anyway, I understand that due to the smaller safety nets in the US, you guys need a bigger stimulus than we do. Okay. But it would be nice, if we would not any longer get criticized for our "huge" welfare system and huge tax.

High taxes are not worse than huge deficits.

Another thing that bothers me is that many Americans demand from us Europeans that we contribute more to US led missions. All these missions are very expensive. Europeans (like Americans) care more about their jobs, health care and the education of their kids than about promoting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I don't think the complaint is so much that we're spending too much but that we're borrowing too much."

Without the wars and ambitious state building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, you would not need to borrow so much. The economic stimulus would be easier to finance.

"As I see it the problem with this is that we have little choice."

I guess so, but Iraq was a war of choice. Maybe in a few years, more Americans might even think that Afghanistan was a war of choice, i.e. that it would have been sufficient to bomb the Taliban extensively rather than trying state and nation building for billions of dollars.

Money that is missing now.

Anyway, it's not up to me to criticize US decisions. Rather the point that I am trying to make is: Americans should not criticize Europeans that much for their small international contributions, because all these wars are terribly expensive and the money is needed for domestic economic issues, because higher taxes and higher deficits are harmful to the economy in the long run. (Still you can criticize for the gap between rhetoric and policy.)

Do you know what I mean?

As I suggested in the body of my post, I don't think the complaint is so much that we're spending too much but that we're borrowing too much. Hence my comments about taxation.

As I see it the problem with this is that we have little choice. We've got to engage in some sort of fiscal stimulus because monetary policy can go now farther. That stimulus could take the form of more spending or less taxing but either way we'll be borrowing more for the near term.