The results are in, The surge is working

[jbg]

I'm afraid that your alarmist view of leaving Iraq should be taken as as seriously as the alarming view of the Vietnam was.

I'll agree with you and fellow 'dippers for once. Oil is the difference.

[ScottSA]

Never good to be flippant. It is still a quagmire that will take many more lives, both Iraqi and American before the US can extricate themselves. It is only by increasing their forces that the violence has abated.....and a resumption could happen at anytime and probably will as soon as the US starts lowering their presence.

That's a possibility, but not a very good one. Neither Germany nor Japan reverted to militarism after the US drew down the occupation, nor, for that matter have most conquered areas after occupation. Having a couple thousand more troops in Iraq no more reduces the conflict in and of itself than did Westmoreland's "surge" in Vietnam. Clearly there are other factors at work, including a tendency for the Iraqis themselves to reject the armed opposition of most actors, and the increasing ability of the Iraqi army to maintain control.

If what you mean is that Iraq will never be a Jeffersonian democracy, you're probably right, but that was never really within reach anyway.

[M.Dancer]

That's a possibility, but not a very good one. Neither Germany nor Japan reverted to militarism after the US drew down the occupation, nor, for that matter have most conquered areas after occupation. Having a couple thousand more troops in Iraq no more reduces the conflict in and of itself than did Westmoreland's "surge" in Vietnam. Clearly there are other factors at work, including a tendency for the Iraqis themselves to reject the armed opposition of most actors, and the increasing ability of the Iraqi army to maintain control.

If what you mean is that Iraq will never be a Jeffersonian democracy, you're probably right, but that was never really within reach anyway.

For that matter, Germany ceased militarism the day they surrendered. The allies never encountered anything even remotely like the insurgency/terrorism it faces now, nor were the none existant german insurgents given moral and material aid by any "neutral" nation like Iran.

As well the factors affecting Iraq are also incredibly different from Vietnam. I agree, a troop surge could not contain the NVA or the Viet Cong (much) but there are no Iraqi regulars and the areas where insurgenst can walk openly diminish with more colaition troop to patrol and to hunt. Of course the effect of Iraqis rejecting the Ba'athist should not be diminished, nor can the moral boost that American boots on the ground has given them, by giving them a measure of confidence to express and to act for themselves.

Not sure where the democracy comment is coming from....I don't recall making any predictions about their democratic future.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I don't know why anyone tries to compare Vietnam and the war in the mid-east.

The major - and I mean MAJOR - difference in my opinion is this:

With Korea and Vietnam, we hated communists. We all knew they were evil. Sure, there were the college kids and some disenfranchised who liked to explore and posture their "belief" in communist ideals - but it was a small minorty of kneejerk anti-american types much like those formerly communist westerners who have turned to Islam today.

The difference - scary difference - today is that nations don't go to war anymore. Soldiers get sent to war and the rest of the nation sits at home and undermines their efforts by belittling and debating the mission.

The biggest chuck of our population: the babyboomers, were college kids "fighting the power" protesting the 'nam war. So now every war to them is vietnam and has no point. Unlike other generations, babyboomers grew up under the premise that wars can't be won and shouldn't be fought. This is fundementally different, which is why I continually ask people on this site "do you believe some things are worth fighting for?"

And the biggest difference today is that back then, the communists couldn't demand special rights in the name of diversity.

The almighty altar of diversity is being exploited by those who don't have the same values as we do. And so as the enemy continually shouts us down, asks us to adapt to THEM, we shepishly do so, and continually, blindlessly celebrate our boundless tolerance.

[jawapunk]

The surge can work all it wants to. America could win outright at this point and still come out as losers. I base this entirely on the state of their economy as a result of this war, the number of new terrorists they have created worldwide. The de-stabilization of the entire region and the information for all small insurgent groups that the worlds largest military can be bogged down for years maybe even beaten, perhaps not in an conventional war, but beatable none-the-less.

[bush_cheney2004]

The surge can work all it wants to. America could win outright at this point and still come out as losers. I base this entirely on the state of their economy as a result of this war, the number of new terrorists they have created worldwide. The de-stabilization of the entire region and the information for all small insurgent groups that the worlds largest military can be bogged down for years maybe even beaten, perhaps not in an conventional war, but beatable none-the-less.

Oh sure, and the Americans have suffered badly this way from which previous wars? Even Canada got rich from the Vietnam War.

[jbg]

As well the factors affecting Iraq are also incredibly different from Vietnam. I agree, a troop surge could not contain the NVA or the Viet Cong (much) but there are no Iraqi regulars and the areas where insurgenst can walk openly diminish with more colaition troop to patrol and to hunt. Of course the effect of Iraqis rejecting the Ba'athist should not be diminished, nor can the moral boost that American boots on the ground has given them, by giving them a measure of confidence to express and to act for themselves.

There are several other differences. For one, because of oil there's more expectation that the US will "stay the course" whereas there was none of that in Viet Nam. Also, partially as a result of the draft, the US was in domestic turmoil at the time. Despite Bush's low poll numbers, college administration buildings are not being seized. Another difference is terrain. Jungles make it uniquely difficult to monitor enemy movements. Deserts are far easier to utilize air surveillance. Also, interdiction in the desert does not involve setting large swaths of land on fire. It did in Viet Nam, with devastating effect on television.

Gemerals always fight the last war. So do anti-war protesters. Iraq ia not Viet Nam and this is not the Woodstock Summer of '69.

[jdobbin]

I'll agree with you and fellow 'dippers for once. Oil is the difference.

The dippers are your party.

[jbg]

The dippers are your party.

And yours.

[jdobbin]

And yours.

Actually, I am a right wing Republican.

[jawapunk]

Oh sure, and the Americans have suffered badly this way from which previous wars? Even Canada got rich from the Vietnam War.

I am not talking about previous wars. I am discussing the war in Iraq and the fact that it is hurting the American economy. Unless you call $270 million a day money well spent.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsec...IraqNumbers.htm

The US has spent about $600 billion since the war began and plans to dump anouther $200 billion in for next year. $9 billion is lost and/or unaccounted for. That stat is INSANE. Aren't you happy you voted for a complete moron and his equally bumbling cohorts?

I don't even know how anyone could defend such irresponsibility. It is called BLINDLY following, time to open up your eyes.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I am not talking about previous wars. I am discussing the war in Iraq and the fact that it is hurting the American economy. Unless you call $270 million a day money well spent.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsec...IraqNumbers.htm

The US has spent about $600 billion since the war began and plans to dump anouther $200 billion in for next year. $9 billion is lost and/or unaccounted for. That stat is INSANE. Aren't you happy you voted for a complete moron and his equally bumbling cohorts?

I don't even know how anyone could defend such irresponsibility. It is called BLINDLY following, time to open up your eyes.

In typical left wing fashion, you are too obsessed with money.

SOme things are far more important than money - and this is one of them. There is a war of civilizations going on.

If you don't have a society, who cares about the economy.

[bush_cheney2004]

I am not talking about previous wars. I am discussing the war in Iraq and the fact that it is hurting the American economy. Unless you call $270 million a day money well spent.

Nonsense...the American economy is fine, with better growth than Canada's economy. Got export growth?

The US has spent about $600 billion since the war began and plans to dump anouther $200 billion in for next year. $9 billion is lost and/or unaccounted for. That stat is INSANE. Aren't you happy you voted for a complete moron and his equally bumbling cohorts?

Yes, I am delighted. At least he didn't piss it away on a Gun Registry! Wanna buy another C-17?

I don't even know how anyone could defend such irresponsibility. It is called BLINDLY following, time to open up your eyes.

America will spend as it damn well pleases thank-you-very-much.

[jawapunk]

Go ahead. Spend yourself into oblivion for all I care. I think you need to take some basic economics classes if you believe the American ecnomy is growing. You also have an overwhelming trade deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade

There is a really good graph that displays your so called "growing" exports. Although a believe a steep decline into negative numbers implies loss/deficit and not growth.

I won't even get started on guns as I understand it is part of the American character and identity and will not begrudge you of that.

To Jerry Seinfeld, I don't believe fiscal responsibility has anything to do with being left wing. In fact smaller government and less social spending is more Republican is it not? So is NOT getting involved in foreign wars and disputes. That dates back to Mr. Washington.

Finally, I don't believe that the current war is a war of civilizations. The middle east is merely fighting back against American cultural imperialism. The Americans are fighting to make sure there are weak nations in control of vital resources so they can be more easily extracted. Even a good Neo Con would profess the same.

Edited November 17, 2007 by jawapunk

[jbg]

Go ahead. Spend yourself into oblivion for all I care. I think you need to take some basic economics classes if you believe the American ecnomy is growing. You also have an overwhelming trade deficit.

The choice isn't whether or not to spend or whether or not to fight. It's whether to fight them there or here. If its us or them, I choose us.

Finally, I don't believe that the current war is a war of civilizations.

Agreed. It's a war between the feral and the civiilzed, much like what happens when a lion or polar bear escapes from a zoo (the analogy being to their "leaders").

The middle east is merely fighting back against American cultural imperialism. The Americans are fighting to make sure there are weak nations in control of vital resources so they can be more easily extracted. Even a good Neo Con would profess the same.

Isn't that economic imperialism rather than cultural imperialism that you're describing or are you too dumb to know the difference among the various Marxist slogans?

[bush_cheney2004]

Go ahead. Spend yourself into oblivion for all I care. I think you need to take some basic economics classes if you believe the American ecnomy is growing. You also have an overwhelming trade deficit.

OK...you win. Positive economic growth means the American economy is shrinking. That would include the single state of California, which has had a larger GDP than all of Canada...always.

I won't even get started on guns as I understand it is part of the American character and identity and will not begrudge you of that.

Are you serious? Do you think America gives a damn what you think about its "character". Lots of "guns" in Canada too!

Finally, I don't believe that the current war is a war of civilizations. The middle east is merely fighting back against American cultural imperialism. The Americans are fighting to make sure there are weak nations in control of vital resources so they can be more easily extracted. Even a good Neo Con would profess the same.

And the Canadians are close at hand for oil services contracts and mining.

[jawapunk]

Actually I meant cultural imperialism and it really has nothing to do with Karl Marx. I will not call you an idiot and I'll ask you to give me the same courtesy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism

[jawapunk]

OK...you win. Positive economic growth means the American economy is shrinking. That would include the single state of California, which has had a larger GDP than all of Canada...always.

Please provide sources/citations that prove that you economy is not in turmoil and that you do not have a ridiculous trade deficit.

Are you serious? Do you think America gives a damn what you think about its "character". Lots of "guns" in Canada too!

Ummm. If you knew how to read, you'll see I didn't actually make any negative statement about your character other than that guns were a part of it. This is not negative. I say I understand it is part of your national character so it is not something I can comment on. Is that better? I am also quite aware there are guns up here. Not sure why you blew up at that statement.

Don't get so sensitive when a Canadian has an opinion about American politics, remember you are on a Canadian forum and we are bound to have our own views.

Edited November 17, 2007 by jawapunk

[bush_cheney2004]

Please provide sources/citations that prove that you economy is not in turmoil and that you do not have a ridiculous trade deficit.

Oh my....turmoil with economic growth....who da thunk it?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/...aspx?symbol=USD

Please to note GDP growth during war in Iraq. Same thing happened during 'Nam. Canada cleans up too..such a deal. But keep on predicting the demise of the American economy, 'cause Canada will be the first to know it.

[jawapunk]

I don't believe I have once stated that the American economy is in demise. I said "turmoil" and "over-spending" and "trade-deficit". GDP is one marker for determining an economy. It however is not an overly convincing argument as it merely shows how large an economy is. I don't think I ever argued that the American economy was shrinking or that it wasn't massive. You stated earlier that exports were growing and the economy was growing. I came back showing that America has an overwhelming trade deficit which does over the long term very much hurt an economy.

GDP also includes government spending. So even though the government is spending billions upon billions, and is creating a positive GDP, this is money that is actually debt(if it is deficit spending) and in the long run will be harmful to the economy. GDP also includes trade surplus/deficit, so carrying a enormous trade deficit as the U.S. does actually lowers the GDP.

Another aspect to consider is the amount of American debt that foreign countries buy up. Recently, the Chinese and Japanese who have been doing this for years are beginning to sell this off because of your ever weakening dollar. If no one continues to buy your trillions in debt you will find yourself living in a house of cards. I don't necessarily believe there is an imminent threat, but I do believe that by further increasing your debt through deficit spending and irresponsible fiscal policy, you are compounding the problem.

Edited November 17, 2007 by jawapunk

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't believe I have once stated that the American economy is in demise. I said "turmoil" and "over-spending" and "trade-deficit". GDP is one marker for determining an economy.

You posted:

Go ahead. Spend yourself into oblivion for all I care. I think you need to take some basic economics classes if you believe the American ecnomy is growing.

Your statement was false.

GDP also includes government spending. So even though the government is spending billions upon billions, and is creating a positive GDP, this is money that is actually debt and in the long run will be harmful to the economy. GDP also includes trade surplus/deficit, so carrying a enormous trade deficit as the U.S. does actually lowers the GDP.

Utter nonsense....no further comment needed for those of us who know better.

Another aspect to consider is the amount of American debt that foreign countries buy up. Recently, the Chinese and Japanese who have been doing this for years are beginning to sell this off because of your ever weakening dollar. If no one continues to buy your trillions in debt you will find yourself living in a house of cards. I don't necessarily believe there is an imminent threat, but I do believe that by further increasing your debt through deficit spending and irresponsible fiscal policy, you are compounding the problem.

Canada has much more experience in such matters, but fortunately, the Americans and others injected much needed capital to save the day. America has a much higher credit card limit than Canada.

[jawapunk]

Utter nonsense....no further comment needed for those of us who know better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

Sorry, but it's true. My bad on stating there is no growth. I retract, but I will not retract that there are some serious fiscal issues which are hurting your currency and honestly slowing your growth. As I stated before GDP is an equation that includes government spending and also your trade surplus/deficit. If America was more fiscally responsible and did not carry such a massive deficit the GDP would be much larger. Also, as government spending is an part of the equation, you will ALMOST ALWAYS see positive GDPs during war time.

It is a little difficult to prove the economics for us both as we have both been able to find sources showing both our arguments.

Edited November 17, 2007 by jawapunk

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry, but it's true. My bad on stating there is no growth. I retract, but I will not retract that there are some serious fiscal issues which are hurting your currency and honestly slowing your growth. As I stated before GDP is an equation that includes government spending and also your trade surplus/deficit.

Again...this is wrong. Trade deficits have not reduced GDP. Christ, the USA has the largest GDP on earth, and a large trade deficit.

If America was more fiscally responsible and did not carry such a massive deficit the GDP would be much larger. Also, as government spending is an part of the equation, you will ALMOST ALWAYS see positive GDPs during war time.

No, fiscal and monetary policy only have an indirect impact on GDP because of the effect on available capital. America had 100% (much higher) deficits during WW2. Guess what happened after that?

Edited November 17, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jawapunk]

Did you even open the link I posted? The formula for how GDP is calculated is right there. It is pretty clear cut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP

GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports), or, GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

It is pretty clear cut. Government spending is there which,

consists of government purchases, which can be financed by seigniorage, taxes, or government borrowing. It is considered to be one of the major components of gross domestic product.

At the moment much of the United States government spending is deficit spending, not harmful necessarily except when it is as massive as during the Bush administration. There is simply no fiscal responsibility whatsoever.

Finally (exports-imports) will give you either a trade surplus or a trade deficit. In the case of a trade deficit, this will amount to a negative number and therefore TAKE AWAY from GDP. There fiscal and motary policy actually have a large impact on GDP.

The US did have large deficits during WW2, and followed it with massive investments in Europe for rebuilding those economies, which paid off. You are atempting to do the same in the Middle East, however the money spent is not the same as after WW2.

The Marshall plan simply gave money to European nations who used this to rebuild their infrastructures and economies. I would contend that this is not what is happening in the middle east. I woud also contend that Europe had infrastructure in place which merely needed repairs/upgrades, whereas in many middle eastern countries you are forced to build these from the ground up which is far more expensive if it works at all.

[jawapunk]

I should also add that Americans in general had to make huge sacrifices economically during WW2. The public bought war bonds and also had widespread rationing on almost all food and goods. This is not the case now which is why the government is forced to borrow so much money