<font color="blue"> Why only Iraq? There are terrible dictatorships all over the world, whose people need freed from oppressive governments. Why only Iraq? </font>
Who said it will only be Iraq? Some 'problems' you handle in parallel, others sequentially. Depends how many resources you have at your disposal.
<font color="blue"> However, as Daryl and I both mention (and our views are on opposite ends many times), there are SERIOUS issues in this country that are not being addressed at all, and are just being swept under the rug.</font>
I believe that the primary responsibility of the government, at all levels, is to protect and defend the country. Therefore, whatever is needed to accomplish that is the first thing taken out of a tax dollar. Whatever is left then goes to address the other issues/problems.
The great debate is, what's needed to defend the country and how do we do it? The balancing act has diplomacy (cheaper) at one end and military (more expensive) at the other end. One belief system leaves more $$ for social programs, infrastructure improvements, etc. while the other leaves less.
<font color="blue"> Are the United States' goals (of the conflict in Iraq) specifically documented anywhere? Are we accomplishing these goals. If we are, are we hitting the target dates for these goals? </font>
Assuming they are, why would you expect this information to be shared publicly? I am sure our enemies would love to know what our timetable is.
<font color="blue"> Are we going to take care of the nuclear capabilities and WMD in other countries that are known threats, or are we just going to ignore those ones? </font>
See first and second responses. Why would we announce what we're going to do and when? It is situations like this, i.e., timetables, who is on the list of countries that need dealt with, etc., where we have to trust our leaders that there are plans for all of this. This is why I not only value a candidate's position on issues, but I also try and determine to the extent possible, if I can trust them, do they keep promises, etc. Many people seem to want the government to lay out plans dealing with these topics, evaluate them to see if they are 'OK'. Laying out plans for when highways are going to be repaved is one thing. Laying out plans for dealing with our enemies is something else. Again, at some point it comes down to us trusting our leaders to be doing the right things. At some point, the quest for more and more details means the voters want to micro-manage the government and to the extreme, have a referendum on what we should do. This is not a democracy, it's a representative democracy where we elect people to not only represent us, but also to use their own good judgement and wisdom to make the right choices and decisions, some of which we will probably disagree with. So, we're back at the issue of, at some point, having to trust our leaders. One of the questions I ask myself before voting, at least recently, is, "If their spouse can't trust them, why should I?" /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
<font color="blue"> Most importantly, is our government currently doing enough domestically to help the future of this country? Schools, jobs, etc. </font>
Here we disagree. The items you mention, while important, are not more important than the security of the country. If we do not have security, these other things do not matter.
