Can anyone help me with my slightly idealistic Theory?

Question

Here it goes. Why can't Democrats and Republicans work actually work together to solve the problem in Iraq and focus on the AMERICAN PEOPLE that they claim there so worried about, because they just seem to be in Iraq for oil. My theory might not be so idealistic though.

Answer 1

The reason they can't work together is because the Republicans are too "wishy washy!" Right now the Republicans aren't even working together amongst themselves, one min. they support Bush, the next min. they don't? They have some very real issues in that Party!

Answer 2

First off, without oil, there is no freedom for you to be idealistic about. Freedom needs a lubricant.

Despite the acrimony on this site between two factions, as an interested foreign observer I say the democrats and republicans get along about as well as one can hope for.

Despite differences regarding the war in Iraq, both sides conduct themselves with pragmatism.

Laws and money bills get passed and no one is starving in the streets (much).

If you want real hostility look into Canadian politics or Spanish or Italian or French.

US politicians are pussycats compared with separatist groups and communists and whacko pro-drug parties, all elected by idealistic chuckleheads!

At least you all agree that your country should remain one nation.

And don't get me started on Russian or Iraqi democracy!

Answer 3

It would seem that men like Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Bush himself - advocates of using military power to shape the world to America's advantage - were persuaded that Iraq presented a tremendous prize. Its oil reserves were equal to those of Saudi Arabia; its reconstruction was estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars to American firms; while its strategic position made it an ideal place from which to project U.S. military power to the oil-rich Gulf and to a vast region beyond. Seizing Iraq and turning it into a client state was a tempting goal.Their financial if not moral calculus becomes even more understandable when you consider that even this amount is literally tiny when you compare it to the economic multiplier effect that having oil and gas allows to the industrialized world. The money multiplier is nothing to it. Consider. By some calculations every barrel of oil carries the equivalent of 23,200 man hours of work in the physics sense of the term. Oil and natural gas are like air, water or soil, in that they are easy to take for granted until you lack them.

Answer 4

I've wondered this myself and the answer hit me the other day while watching PBS's The Newshour. There were two senators on there debating.

Here is how it went:

The repub would somewhere in his statement comment on Iraq and Al Qaeda. The democrat would them quote a rebuttal using sources like the 911 commission report verbatimly. The democrat senator would correct the republican on the lie.

Then the repub would say something like, "... well we need to move on.." and continue his statement once again making a false reference to Iraq. And once again the demo would correct him.

This went on a few times then the demo finally said, "... if you would just tell the truth, we would be able to move on and get to work on issues... we can't begin to solve a problem when one said is continually lieing about the facts pertaining to that problem..."

That says it all.

Answer 5

Because they struggle for balance of power and as we all know power is measured in money in this country. More money more power. As for Iraq to some extent oil is a factor however what about all the defense contracts that where awarded to Republican owned business.It would be impossible for them to work together simply because their interests are not the same. They do not share a common goal.

Answer 6

the trouble with trying to work this out from afar is that we may never know the real truth or not because we are not close to the situation. so wont know if there is a conspiracy or political agender involved justified or not. so i probably sugest go plant a tree or something as a contribution to world peace -sorry for the sarcasm i dont now how we can resolve this!may just be idealism.

Answer 7

The american people? Oh yeah, cause theyve got so much hardship and misery in their lives dont they? Theyre just so god damn deprived I dont know how they manage to survive. Those poor things, they most definitely need those trustworthy politicians taking care of them. (This is heavy sarcasm in case you were wondering)

Why dont we send the republicans and the democrats packin and start caring about all humanity instead of just ourselves? How about the millions of starving children around the world? How about the Sudan? How about the people living under the brutal US-supported dictatorship in Saudi Arabia? How about the thousands who die in North Korea everyday because their government-made "food" is made of tree bark that make your stomach bleed? Or the ones imprisoned in the concentration camps (also in North Korea) that are the size of Washington DC?

But they arent american, so they dont count right? One american dead is a horrible tragedy, 46,000 dead Iraqi civilians is just a statistic.

Answer 8

Yes slightly idealistic. You need to contact your political representatives and let them know how you stand on this issue. Sometimes it take a barrage of constituents beating them over the head to get them to listen. As was the case of the house passed the border fence today. Your voice does count, make yourself heard.

Answer 9

actually good question, the problem in Iraq is Mr bush has no answer for Iraq its always STAY THE COURSE,THE PROBLEM WITH DEMS AND REPUBS IS THE DEMS WANT TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME ON A SET TIME TABLE AND THE REPUBS SEEM TO THINK IN ABOUT,WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER but isn't it nice that they take care of other people instead of Americans ?

Answer 10

Republicans want to prevent problems, democrats want to respond to them. If you prevent the problem you don't see any results(example: no terrorist attacks in the US in the past five years.) If you respond to a problem, you see the problem and the solution, or at least the attempted solution. (Kerry said that he would respond to a terrorist attack with a proportionate response.)