The Iraq War was a conflicicet triggered by an invasion of Iraq, by the United States and the United Kingdom from March 20, 2003 to December 18, 2011, though sectarian violence continues and has caused thousands of fatalities, a total of 4,486 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012. After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.‑led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991, and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted. Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been the one of the main arguments for the invasion. The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001,as the armed forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Afghan United Front (Northern Alliance) launched Operation Enduring Freedom. The primary driver of the invasion was the September 11 attacks on the United States, with the stated goal of dismantling the al-Qaeda terrorist organization and ending its use of Afghanistan as a base. The United States also said that it would remove the Taliban regime from power and create a viable democratic state. More than a decade into the war, NATO forces continue to battle a widespread Taliban insurgency, and the war has expanded into the tribal area of neighboring Pakistan. The War in Afghanistan is also the United States longest running war. A total of 2,136 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. On 25 July 2010, the release of 91,731 classified documents from the Wikileaks organization was made public. The documents cover U.S. military incident and intelligence reports from January 2004 to December 2009. Some of these documents included sanitized, and "covered up", accounts of civilian casualties caused by Coalition Forces. The reports also included many references to other incidents involving civilian casualties like the Kunduz airstrike and Nangar Khel incident. The leaked documents also contain reports of Pakistan collusion with the Taliban. According to Der Spiegel, "the documents clearly show that the Pakistani intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence (usually known as the ISI) is the most important accomplice the Taliban has outside of Afghanistan." The New York Times was especially alarmed by the level of collusion with the Taliban, having concluded that Pakistan "allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders." The Guardian, however, did not think there was "a convincing smoking gun" for complicity between Pakistan intelligence services and the Taliban. Note, we have spent more time in these two wars, than in WWI and WWII combined. Also note, there has been NO congressional declaration of war, since WWII. Mitt Romney promises a major defense build-up if he is elected president. Under last year’s budget agreement, defense spending over the next decade will amount to $6 trillion. If no debt agreement is reached by January, that will drop to $5.5 trillion under rules known as sequestration. Romney, the Republican challenging President Obama, vows to spend at least 4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product on defense, which works out to $8.3 trillion under the same economic assumptions. http://tinyurl.com/8ub9yl5 Mitt Romney’s pledge to build 15 Navy vessels a year, up from about nine a year now planned, is a goal that will probably be reached in his first term. The Navy’s plans now call for seven vessels in 2014, eight in 2015, nine in 2016 and seven in 2017. That’s 31 vessels for a planned expenditure of $53.3 billion. The plan also anticipates 11 vessels in 2018 and nine in 2019. Over 30 years, the Navy’s ship purchases will average about 8.9 vessels a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. http://tinyurl.com/8upuawe Are we gearing up for even more war? Does Romney have an underlying plan, that isn't been spoke of? With a President Romney, will WWIII be a possibility, and be evoked by the U.S.? Is Romney advocating Global Dominance? In a June 2007 Republican debate, Romney was asked about "the use of tactical nuclear weapons" to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb and responded that "You don't take options off the table, but what you do is stand back and say, 'What's going on here?' You see what's happening in Sudan and Afghanistan, in Iraq and Iran." In 2007 he also stated he would use "blockade, bombardment and surgical military strikes" against Iran if necessary. In September of that year he protested Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, stating that the invitation should be revoked and he should instead be greeted with an indictment under the Genocide Convention for threats against Israel. He stated that failure to act should lead the United States to reconsider its level of support and funding for the United Nations. In 2011, Romney advocated both overt and covert means to get Iran to stop its nuclear weapons development program. He said that “Ultimately, regime change is what’s going to be necessary.” In 2012 he called on President Obama “to impose crippling economic sanctions on the Iranian regime, support the Iranian dissidents, and convey through actions – not just words – that the military option is very real and very credible.” In June 2012, Romney said "I can assure you, if I'm President, the Iranians will have no question but that I would be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world." In his July 2012 trip to Israel he said that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear "capability" should be America's "highest national security priority." ( A clear indication that Romney intends to go to war with Iran ) Mitt Romney's web site says: "Mitt Romney will never make national-security decisions based upon electoral politics. Upon taking office, he will review our transition to the Afghan military by holding discussions with our commanders in the field. He will order a full inter-agency assessment of our military and assistance presence in Afghanistan to determine the level required to secure our gains and to train Afghan forces to the point where they can protect the sovereignty of Afghanistan from the tyranny of the Taliban. Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan under a Romney administration will be based on conditions on the ground as assessed by our military commanders with the goal of completing the transition of combat operations to the Afghan Army by the end of 2014". That means 2 more years of war at 3.6 billion dollars a month, and countless deaths, and then Romneys web site says: "Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan under a Romney administration will be based on conditions on the ground as assessed by our military commanders with the goal of completing the transition of combat operations to the Afghan Army by the end of 2014". With our progress in this conflict being as minimal as it has been, is 2014 really going to happen? Probably not. "Assessed by our military commanders" indicates that, if our commanders in the field are not sure the job is done, we will continue with the war, beyond 2014. So where does this all end? 8 Trillion in military build up, 53.3 billion for new Navy ships? All to continue in war with third world countries, that have no problem holding their own against the Super Power of the World, the United States? ****"Romney was asked about "the use of tactical nuclear weapons" to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb and responded that "You don't take options off the table"*** - Is Mitt Romney ready and willing to go into a nuclear war? He isn't saying NO. He said: "You don't take options off the table". How much more war do the people of this country have to put up with? How much more of our tax money has to be spent on killing? Apparently, our own economy, the homeless, the unemployed, the poor, the sick, the failing education system... all have to take a back seat to our military spending to continue wars in countries, whose biggest complaint with the U.S. is that, we are in their countries. Do our ground forces of more than 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, have any real impact on our goal? We fight, kill, bomb and then give them food and supplies to rebuild? Does any of this make sense? Romney's willingness to consider the use of nuclear weapons seems to point the the fact that a nuclear war is quite possible, if he were to be elected. This is the United States of America, as seen through the eyes of the world. We invade, bomb and kill, all in the name of Freedom and Democracy. The Afghanistan war was started in the attempt to hunt down Osama Bin Laden for 9/11. The hunt is over, but the war continues. Now it is the war to place Democracy and Freedom, as the Afghanistan government. Is it our place to force our failing system of government into these countries? And how long after we leave, will it be before these governments are over thrown and they return to their former ways? Russian President Vladimir Putin has pointed to Romney's comment on Spain's economy, at the Presidential debate, as justification for Russia's opposition to America's missile defense plans in Europe, saying the statement has "strengthened Russia's positions in talks on this important and sensitive subject." Is President Putin saying, we will keep our missles, and see what Romney's plans are? Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/10/07/mitt-romney-spain-jab-adds-to-foreign-policy-woes/#ixzz28eR9hDsm When you cast your vote this year, remember one thing. The biggest threat to our country, or to the world, may not be from some 3rd world middle east country. Mitt Romney has already offended large groups of our own citizens, and several Ally countries with his own words and viewpoints. Mitt Romney himself could be our biggest national and global security risk.
Posted by wisemagic

I understand what you are saying but the same issues you posted the people of the U.S. are supporting  at the moment.  These two parties are the dominent parties because most of the people back either of the two. There are other parties but little support. In Response to Re: President Willard "Mitt" Romney :
Posted by creppelrm